No Britain, no Lend-Lease?

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date
I consider this unlikely. Firstly, Finland doesn't want Leningrad. Mannerheim et al. still considered conquering big foreign cities in terms that must have seemed quaint and old-fashioned the their German allies, namely that they would have to (sort of) feed and look after the captive population, which they can't afford. Secondly, resource-wise Finland could only launch a "full tilt" attack on Leningrad at the expense of the troops deployed for the attack in Eastern Karelia. From both strategic and nationalist-irredentist perspectives, East Karelia and the projected "Three Isthmus line" offered a better cost-benefit ratio.

Even in this changed situation, the immediate and middle-term benefits of conquering Leningrad would not outweigh the cost of the operation for Finland. Just let Germany finish of the Soviets and then pick up some of the pieces if the Germans are successful.

This is pretty much how I would read it - the Finns going to the Pre-Winter War borders then pretty much halting. Even on the winning side, Finland has been swallowed a few times by Sweden and Russia and would be cautious not to give cause for it to happen again.
 
Mostly agreed, but it is possible that Finland might decide to offer some support for a German attack on Leningrad in exchange for German aid in accomplishing their other goals.

It is possible. There is a paradox here though: Finland would likely only help Germany if Germany seems to be clearly winning anyway. But if the Germans are winning anyway, they might not see the need to push the Finns to help them. The Finnish leadership was quite stingy in offering the Germans help beyond its own plans: most likely, the initiative would have to come from the Germans.

I'd say Finnish help would be more likely post-1942, when it appears things are going according to Hitler's plans. I guess one shouldn't rule out Finnish attacks on Soviet supply lines (the Murmansk railway), naval action on the Ladoga and a more extensive joint effort in intelligence. Finnish radio intelligence, for example, was surprisingly efficient: if they decide to share a lot more information with the Germans than IOTL, it might help considerably.
 
I consider this unlikely. Firstly, Finland doesn't want Leningrad. Mannerheim et al. still considered conquering big foreign cities in terms that must have seemed quaint and old-fashioned the their German allies, namely that they would have to (sort of) feed and look after the captive population, which they can't afford.

It was my understanding that Finland was supposed to get Leningrad after it was razed to the ground. If this is true, there is no local population left to be worried about.
 
Check the link in the OP, the posters to that thread seemed to be of the mind that if Churchill was dead the British people and government would not be inspired continue to resist.



If anything, this scenario seems to mean that a "Fatherland" situation is most likely. The Axis is able to better prepare for the invasion of Russia for a year, plus have their vassals (France et al) also add their full economies to the war effort. Also, the Italians are likely to have a larger contribution as they won't have commitments elsewhere (like North Africa), and the Spanish might even commit more, as they won't have to worry about the reaction of the West. Who knows, maybe Finland will decided to go full tilt for Leningrad, as they won't have to worry about the West seeking vengeance and the Soviets seem more likely than ever to fall.

True, the Soviets are likely to be anticipating an invasion and plan accordingly, so they perhaps do better in 1941, stopping the Blitz much earlier. The only problem with this is that the Axis is then able to sustain a multi-season campaign much better than OTL, while the Soviets are forced to rely solely on their own resources, meaning fewer men for the front, as the civilian population is forced to turn to agriculture, mining, and manufacturing to make up for the loss of lend-lease. Otherwise mass starvation is likely, and even with the changes to the Soviet planning, it is likely that some starvation still happens anyway.

Once the Axis take Ukraine, the Soviets will be in dire straights because of the loss of food, mining, and manpower without the replacement of goods through lend lease.
The likely outcome is a Brest-Litovsk peace deal, but worse, with Stalin falling to internal house-cleaning and a wrecked Soviet Union incapable of aggression.
The Axis proceeds to ethnically cleanse large areas of their newly-won territory, but things slow down once Hitler dies and the lack of a replacement with the necessary gravitas to hold the Nazi party together (Göring is about 5 years from a heart attack or diabetes doing him in, Himmler is hated by everyone, Bormann also has enemies and is a faceless bureaucrat, Goebbels is a joke). Germany probably falls to a stooge who is supported by the army, which then either opts for bringing the Monarchy back, or running the country indefinitely. Or a civil war between the SS and Wehrmacht.

No just no. Whatever Axis-wank fantasies you have, any TL that sees Poland, Ukraine, Belarus and Russia depopulated is a bad thing. Having Europe under the thumb of Nazi puppet regimes is not good, nor is it conducive to long term economic growth. French under Vichy rule don’t contribute much of anything due to hostility from the French population and Nazi Germany’s chronic mismanagement of resources. At best Vichy can hold on to power and keep the Nazi’s from having to garrison France too much, it will not provide manpower or large scale industrial output for a German attack on Russia.

The Nazi regime itself was unstable, inherently cannibalistic and corrupt beyond measure. It will ruin Germany and will be lucky to survive beyond Hitler’s death before collapsing with recriminations all round and a Germany so fucked up they’ll have to invent a new word just to describe just how fucked up Germany is.

Of course that is assuming this Germany and it’s collection reluctant puppets can even beat the Soviets which is dubious, because as has been pointed out the Red Army wont be caught unaware, if the British are beaten and Germany is massing forces in Poland. Not having around three million troopd encircled/routed in the first weeks of war due to a surprise attack is a massive boost to the Soviets, particularly when combined with early mobilization. Also assuming Britain dosnt *gasp:eek:* break a solem treaty signed with Hitler as soon as his genocideal war In the east starts to turn into a bloody disaster.

FDR US will likely supply the Soviets even if it’s in an underhand way FDR wasn’t keen on the Nazi’s by any measure if Britain is out then the U.S.S.R will get a degree of US support even if limited to only to Lend Lease rather than a second front (which would be paid for later LL was given for free).

A very high chance. In 1940, it was seen as the default option.

No it's because Hitler himself and the Nazi regime in general are manically Anti-Semitic to a pathological and inevitably murderous degree. They wanted the Jews gone for good not shipped to sunny Madagascar.
 
Of course, Britain being out of the war leads to Stalin actually preparing for the German invasion, which sort of negates the point of Lend Lease seeing as the Soviets will do much better anyway.

Although historically, the majority of the American public pre-Pearl Harbour desired a Soviet victory against the Germans although I'm not sure how much Britain being in the war affected this. Presuming a clear majority still wish for Soviet victory, Congress would need to take into account the fact that the American public want them to help the USSR.
 
Why do even we assume Britain stays out for long? Think about it, why would the average Brit be so sanguine about the prospect of Nazi dominated Europe? After all with no major rivals on the continent people would naturally assume the Nazi’s would start seriously investing in an invasion fleet and stronger airforce.

And before anyone starts with the whole Hitler just wubs the British Empire guff, why would we assume the British would buy that line a even a moment? After all Hitler is a serial treaty-breaker and he poured buckets of shit over the Soviets rhetorically speaking, until he and Stalin made kissy-face by singing the M-R Pact. So the public image of Hitler is that of a lying, unpredictable, mass-murdering lunatic, whom the Britain would now also have a clear desire for revenge against due to recent defeats.

I submitin TTL any peace treaty is as meaningless as the ones we periodically signed with Napoleon, a temporary respite nothing more.
 
Why do even we assume Britain stays out for long? Think about it, why would the average Brit be so sanguine about the prospect of Nazi dominated Europe? After all with no major rivals on the continent people would naturally assume the Nazi’s would start seriously investing in an invasion fleet and stronger airforce.

And before anyone starts with the whole Hitler just wubs the British Empire guff, why would we assume the British would buy that line a even a moment? After all Hitler is a serial treaty-breaker and he poured buckets of shit over the Soviets rhetorically speaking, until he and Stalin made kissy-face by singing the M-R Pact. So the public image of Hitler is that of a lying, unpredictable, mass-murdering lunatic, whom the Britain would now also have a clear desire for revenge against due to recent defeats.

I submitin TTL any peace treaty is as meaningless as the ones we periodically signed with Napoleon, a temporary respite nothing more.

I agree. Also if it got desperate enough that we would be willing to accept German domination of Europe, it's possible Anthrax would be used, winning the war for Britain..
 
Last edited:
Urban fox, The Red

It depends on the circumstances but I agree that Britain will want revenge and to secure its position. Politicians do very stupid things from time to time and Britain really needs to re-organise both its armed forces and a lot of the economic but there's going to be strong interest in doing something to prevent one power dominating so much of the continent.

The only danger might be if one power won very quickly, because after the defeat in 40 it would probably be a couple of years before the country is mentally and materially prepared for another major war. Ideally for Britain [but not for the poor sods in eastern Europe:(] would be to let the two dictatorships tear chunks out of each other and be prepared to step in to stop one side winning. [Going up against such a large state of a Nazi Germany dominated Europe would be a serious task without reliable allies and then having the prospect of having to face the SU afterwards:(]. Not to mention there is the possibility of Japan starting something in the east which might distract resources as well.

In terms of the US I suspect reactions would be mixed. Especially those populations from eastern Europe would be angry at any trade with the Nazi empire. On the other hand there is strong anti-communist feeling and big business is very influential. Also the country is still at the start of the decade facing a lot of unemployment, along with possibly a small slump as sales to Britain and France decline. Could however be that the limiting factor might be German shortages of funds to buy.

Steve
 
I think Britain might have a better time of it in the far east, but not by much. I take it the rest of TTL goes as per the original with the Pearl Harbour attack going in?
If so, I think Japan could either be out of the war by early 1944, or, the war could drag on until 46 or later if the Allies have to invade the Japanese home islands. Once Operation Olympic begins, it won't be possible to pull the troops out of contact to drop the atomic bombs as per OTL.

This seems very improbable to me. The first question is what happens to the Dutch Government in this POD. If they leave Britain and return to The Netherlands, they would certainly not have agreed to join an embargo. Britain minus Churchill and Lend-Lease would trust the USA less. Thus Britain is also less likely to join an embargo. The Japanese will be hurt by any American sanctions but are not going to attack Pearl Harbor to obtain scrap steel :D.
 
It was my understanding that Finland was supposed to get Leningrad after it was razed to the ground. If this is true, there is no local population left to be worried about.

What you are talking about is a possible future, not national strategy for 1941-42. The question was what the Finnish government would immediately (that is, during the ongoing war) do to Leningradians if the city or a major part of it was conquered by Finnish troops (my understanding of wiking's "going full tilt against Leningrad"). Because of Finnish dependance on German food imports, there was no way Finns could look after the captured Soviet population in any way the West would not consider an atrocity.

Finland did not want to piss off the WAllies (or the Soviet Union) any more than was necessary. The Finnish government was run by nationalist opportunists, not some kooks planning for a One Thousand Year Empire or thinking their little nation could (or should) go about trying to decide a world war.
 
I think Britain might have a better time of it in the far east, but not by much. I take it the rest of TTL goes as per the original with the Pearl Harbour attack going in?
Not if Britain cuts a deal with Germany in '40. Japan only attacked the U.S. because she was sure an attack on Britain guaranteed the U.S. would come in on Britain's side, & that was heavily based on Lend-Lease & Neutrality Patrol. (It probably depended more on IJN not wanting to get shut out of appropriations...) OTOH, it's possible the Brits can now deploy enough force to Singapore Japan has a real fight on her hands in Malaya & DEI even without the U.S. And it's very possible something like the Greer Incident (recall Panay) happens off Luzon & the U.S. DoW anyhow, in aid of China (which was the objective all along OTL): not an "arranged" attack on Pearl (despite what the conspiracy loons think:mad:) but perhaps a *Neutrality Patrol out of Manila.
...if the Allies have to invade the Japanese home islands.
Slim need for it IMO. Blockade & bombing would do nicely.
Of course, Britain being out of the war leads to Stalin actually preparing for the German invasion....
Why? OTL Stalin was convinced Hitler wouldn't attack. So why is he ready for an attack TTL?
 
Last edited:
Japan only attacked the U.S. because she was sure an attack on Britain guaranteed the U.S. would come in on Britain's side...


No.

Japan attacked the US because the Philippines sits squarely across the sea lanes between Japan and the "Southern Resource" territories she desperately needed.

An attack on the Philippines, and thus an attack on the US, was always part of the "Lunge to the South". The Pearl Harbor operation was little more than a very late addition to a war plan Japan had been contemplating since the 1920s.
 
This seems very improbable to me. The first question is what happens to the Dutch Government in this POD. If they leave Britain and return to The Netherlands, they would certainly not have agreed to join an embargo. Britain minus Churchill and Lend-Lease would trust the USA less. Thus Britain is also less likely to join an embargo. The Japanese will be hurt by any American sanctions but are not going to attack Pearl Harbor to obtain scrap steel :D.

Mostlyharmless

The Dutch I can see, although they might still come under pressure from Britain and the US to take part in a boycott of trade with Japan. Especially if Japan doesn't join in when Germany starts its crusade against Russia, which might upset Adolf.

However, unless Britain goes virtually collaborationist I think it will still seek good relations with America, both as the only likely powerful ally available and because it still seeks trade with it. Also, for various reasons it will continue to oppose the Japanese occupation of China. This would be one obvious good reason and excuse for closer links with the US as both nations have interests in co-operating for common advantage.

Steve
 
DrakonFin

I can't see the Finns, under any circumstances, being at all interested in a major role in storming Leningrad as the butcher's bill would be far more than they could afford, regularless of victory or defeat. That probably overrides the other reasons you give for them not being interested.

However, if Leningrad was on the verge of collapse what would be the situation if the commander of the garrison tried to surrender to the Finns? [Or possibly simply larger numbers of troops and/or civilians sought to escape the Germans by trying to head north].

Which raises a point that I know the Germans refused to allow civilians to escape from the city once the siege was in place. Do you know, was there any attempt by civilians to escape to the north? Either to get away from the Germans or simply the privations of the siege?

Steve

What you are talking about is a possible future, not national strategy for 1941-42. The question was what the Finnish government would immediately (that is, during the ongoing war) do to Leningradians if the city or a major part of it was conquered by Finnish troops (my understanding of wiking's "going full tilt against Leningrad"). Because of Finnish dependance on German food imports, there was no way Finns could look after the captured Soviet population in any way the West would not consider an atrocity.

Finland did not want to piss off the WAllies (or the Soviet Union) any more than was necessary. The Finnish government was run by nationalist opportunists, not some kooks planning for a One Thousand Year Empire or thinking their little nation could (or should) go about trying to decide a world war.
 
Not if Britain cuts a deal with Germany in '40. Japan only attacked the U.S. because she was sure an attack on Britain guaranteed the U.S. would come in on Britain's side, & that was heavily based on Lend-Lease & Neutrality Patrol. (It probably depended more on IJN not wanting to get shut out of appropriations...) OTOH, it's possible the Brits can now deploy enough force to Singapore Japan has a real fight on her hands in Malaya & DEI even without the U.S. And it's very possible something like the Greer Incident (recall Panay) happens off Luzon & the U.S. DoW anyhow, in aid of China (which was the objective all along OTL): not an "arranged" attack on Pearl (despite what the conspiracy loons think:mad:) but perhaps a *Neutrality Patrol out of Manila.

I don't know. America still wants to oppose Japanese expansion and Britain is the only practical ally for that purpose. Plus if Britain is at peace in Europe it definitely has the forces to stop the Japanese dead in SE Asia even without America. The RN may suffer badly if, as is possible the Japanese carrier force is underestimated. However Britain simply has too much air power and mechanised strength for Japan if not totally committed to war in Europe. Especially given that Japan already has the vast majority of its available forces tied up in China or Manchuria and the logistical problems they would have getting more forces than OTL south. [Especially given that British forces could apply a lot more pressure on such lines of communications].


Slim need for it IMO. Blockade & bombing would do nicely.

Agreed. Definitely the best way of doing it if nukes aren't available and you need to go for total victory.

Why? OTL Stalin was convinced Hitler wouldn't attack. So why is he ready for an attack TTL?

Stalin was convinced that Hitler wasn't insane enough to attack Russia while still at war with Britain. Even aside from his own paranoia he was fully aware of Hitler's intent for Russia. If Britain is not at war Stalin will be expecting a German attack in short order.

This may not be totally beneficial for Stalin and the Russians. He may over-estimate the Red army and seek to counter-attack the initial German strikes in which case the Red army could have more forces destroyed in the initial clashes near the border. Stalin was quite capable of insisting on counter-attacks or holding at all costs orders although he did seem to learn to pay more attention to his generals over time.

Steve
 
Why? OTL Stalin was convinced Hitler wouldn't attack. So why is he ready for an attack TTL?

Because even if Stalin was an insular paranoid even he couldn't miss milliions of troops, thousands of tanks and planes massing on his border. By this stage Germany had no other active enemies and had no use for these massive forces except to attack someone. Who? Very obviously the nearest target.
 

Don Grey

Banned
Hitler called for the Jews to be wiped out (across Europe, not in limited cases) in a meeting on the 12th, just after declaring war on the USA. Long before the Wannsee Conference. RedcoatT's post indicates that things were already rolling in the east by the time that general order went out on 12th Dec, 1941.

The outcome of Lend-lease to the Soviet Union after Britain comes to peace is that all of continental Europe falls behind the iron curtain. The Soviets won the second world war. Give them more lend lease and they would do it again. The extra trucks allow them to reach Paris/Madrid. They didn't even need lend lease after early 1942. It was just a cold war bonus. The early lend lease from Britain in Dec 1941 made the largest difference. Maybe the outer streets of Moscow (west of the river/canal) might fall without that (but the Soviets would still win).

Ok I maybe wrong because i dont know the internal workings of the soviets but i cant help but ask. More trucks and you get madrid/paris im sorry but with all do respect the seems bit outlandish too me. Theres this conception that weather it be imperial russia or red russia they can stretch as far as they like as much as they like. I mean is there some sort of natural power/ability russians have to make them immune to logistics. Its as if, if it wasnt for politics and diplomacy we would all be speaking russian or thank god he created votka! I can some how understand it happening in the hight of he cold war in a world were theres no america or isnt a super power but not in ww2. The population of russia prior to ww2 was 109,300,000 (i think so correct me if im wrong). So how is all of continental europe going to fall under the red curtain?

Dont get me wrong im not calling you out(im just trying to learn) i may be painfuly ignorrant of russia's capabilities but i would just like to know how soviet russia can get to madrid with more trucks and manage to hold on to everything they have gotten in between? You can PM me if you like.
 
Last edited:
Because even if Stalin was an insular paranoid even he couldn't miss milliions of troops, thousands of tanks and planes massing on his border.
He did in OTL.

Of course, the main reason the attack caught Stalin off guard was that he was doing just about everything he could to delay it, and was too optimistic about how well it was working. Stalin knew war with Germany was coming, but he wanted to delay it until the Red Army was done recovering from the purges and getting its new toys (like the T-34). Stalin's mistake was not so much failing to see that Germany was about to attack is it was overestimating his ability to stall the German attack with diplomatic maneuvering.
 
Why? OTL Stalin was convinced Hitler wouldn't attack. So why is he ready for an attack TTL?

Because Stalin was sure of three things.

1) Hitler despised Communism and wanted Lebensraum in the East.

2) Hitler believed that a two front war would be the end for Germany as it was in the First World War.

3) That Hitler would put military necessity before ideology, as he had before the war began.

Thus Stalin reasoned that for Hitler to invade the USSR he would first need to dispatch Britain, according to his rule of only having a war on one front. Thus the USSR was safe from invasion until Britain could be subdued. Thus Stalin went to every length necessary to assure Germany that he was not going to attack as the only way Germany would attack whilst Britain was still in the conflict was if the reasoned that the Soviet Union was preparing their own strike.

Stalin hoped this situation would remain the case until both sides fatally weakened each other, allowing the Red Army to roll over Europe. In the worst case scenario were Britain finally folds after relentless German aggression, the Soviet Union would at least be prepared to meet the Germans on superior terms.

This paranoid delusion obviously failed in OTL ( although Stalin did have the last laugh, the second front remaining open allowed for a speedier end to the war than there would have been if only the Soviet Union and Germany were fighting each other) and the Soviet people paid the price.

Now in this scenario, Stalin's logic would reason that seeing as Britain has been subdued, military necessity no longer prevents an attack on the Soviet Union and given Hitler's ideological beliefs an attack is all but certain. Thus Stalin begins to listen to his own intelligence sources, begins calling up reservists, shoots down Recon aircraft and starts frantically constructing frontier defences, knowing that the German attack is going to come regardless of apparent Soviet provocation.

The lives and equipment which will be saved by these measures will easily negate Lend Lease.
 
I don't know. America still wants to oppose Japanese expansion and Britain is the only practical ally for that purpose. Plus if Britain is at peace in Europe it definitely has the forces to stop the Japanese dead in SE Asia even without America. The RN may suffer badly if, as is possible the Japanese carrier force is underestimated. However Britain simply has too much air power and mechanised strength for Japan if not totally committed to war in Europe. Especially given that Japan already has the vast majority of its available forces tied up in China or Manchuria and the logistical problems they would have getting more forces than OTL south. [Especially given that British forces could apply a lot more pressure on such lines of communications].
It appears you misread me. I agree almost completely. I was thinking, if Japan still attacks DEI/Malaya, she'd have her ass handed to her by an undistracted Britain (plus Oz & Co., of course). I'd suggest, however, it's possible (& I should've noticed sooner:eek:) she might not even "go south" at all, with Britain able to offer strong resistance. There was a strong lobby to attack the Sovs (as late as August '45,:eek: believe it or not), & Japan was very opportunistic over French territory; I'd expect her not to go after the Brits without the appearance of imminent collapse.

U.S. efforts to aid China had to account for the isolationists, too, which is why I suggest *Neutrality Patrol: FDR &c were looking for Japan to provoke something (which is why you see so much of "Let Japan make the first overt move", which the conspiracy loon use as evidence FDR arranged Pearl Harbor). Also, I see no need for a U.S. ally should Japan get stupid over P.I. The Pacific Fleet drove Japan into the ground without much need for help OTL. (Sub Force brought the economy to ruin alone.)

If I take you to mean a united front to pressure Japan to leave IndoChina & metropolitan China (& allow them to keep Manchuria), again, I'd agree. Presuming a trifle more astute diplomacy, without the distraction of Germany. It's within bounds an Anglo-U.S. diplomatic effort could split Japan from Germany. (Has she formally joined the Axis yet TTL?)
 
Last edited:
Top